Big FREEDOM! Stuff > The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will

Help me understand a Voluntarist society

<< < (3/3)

badfish:

--- Quote from: bob-rob on July 19, 2016, 02:20:58 AM ---Yes, I am not building a picture of how "government will function" because I see your paradigm of analysis as fundamentally flawed--so your evaluation of any hypothetical "functioning" of society would be similarly flawed IMHO.

--- End quote ---

What does asking what you advocate for have to do with YOUR analysis that my paradigm of analysis is fundamentally flawed? In other words you can't answer my question because you don't agree with my answer to the same. Sorry, but that's the way a discussion works. I'm asking a simple question. If you advocate for a different world, tell me what that is.

badfish:

--- Quote from: bob-rob on July 20, 2016, 03:25:50 AM ---
My other posts were in reference to the final quote above (about the "agreed upon system"): you seem to have entered the discussion with old baggage that will keep you with your current beliefs.  Many people do make utopian claims about libertarianism or voluntaryism--I say that such claims are unwarranted and that the reason to abide by a principle of nonaggression is something that affects individual actions, one at a time, and the outcome is whatever it is.

--- End quote ---

I have no such baggage that keeps me from changing my beliefs. I do have knowledge of man-kind and history, which I do not consider baggage. I consider it essential to philosophy as long as you look at everything openly and with a grain of salt knowing that not everything is as it seems. I am actually even open to a socialist society as long as it is done correctly. I have not seen anybody advocate for any type of socialism that I would be inclined to support at this point, but I would still be open to listening to ideas. There is much evidence to support the fact that government does things less efficiently than the private sector, however that doesn't mean that government couldn't learn to be more efficient. I think the reason why government does things so inefficiently is because of private sector influence (lobbyists). Obamacare for instance screams private insurance company influence to me. If the government could come out with socialist programs that actually worked efficiently then they wouldn't need to use force to get people to comply. I think Obamacare is the worst type of socialist program there could ever be. A program that forces people to participate in giving money to a private industry is completely asinine to me.

I'm getting off subject here so I will go back to your reply now. It seems to me that you don't really advocate for any type of society. Instead, you just have an idea that non-violence is best, but you have no idea how to actually achieve it. I agree that non violence and voluntarism is best, but I don't agree in stopping there. I'm more interested in activism and philosophy and in finding ways to make things better. I am looking for achievable goals and ideas. I hope you see the difference.

In my search for answers about the voluntarist philosophy I came across a podcast yesterday that had Darryl Perry on it talking about his run for president. When the host started asking him questions about how things may function in a completely free society Darryl had a bit of a meltdown. He started yelling at the host saying that he was trying to get him to "Centrally plan liberty", and that he wasn't interested in that. Rather, he was interested in promoting the idea of freedom. In my opinion, you can't do one without the other. Especially if you are running for president. If you are running for president on a platform of liberty then you need to be able to plan it. You need to be able to tell voters why your platform is better than the others. To be fair, Darryl was calling into a progressive podcast and the host was most likely trying to trip him up. He succeeded.

Klapton:

--- Quote from: badfish on July 10, 2016, 10:58:52 PM ---Let's say somebody is raped, and hires somebody on the market to look into the matter. What gives the free market vigilante the right to infringe on the rapists rights? Many times cases of rape are actually just cases where two people both drank too much and somebody regrets or doesn't remember what happened due to being intoxicated. I have actually seen this scenario play out many times. Maybe the defendant is not really a rapist, but the person who was hired isn't paid by the defendant so they will not want to listen to them. What if the rapist really is a rapist, but pays the vigilante even more money to leave him alone? It is a free market society after-all, and the highest bidder wins. This is where I see the problem. I feel like there has to be some agreed upon system in place to handle situations like this. In a utopia nobody would ever get raped, but I don't believe in man-kind that much.
--- End quote ---

I don't have time to address your entire post, but I wanted to respond to this idea about "the highest bidder."

If you were to take up the security / investigation profession, would YOU be merely open to the highest bidder, or would you base your business model and your reputation on doing what is right?  If you would not conduct yourself in this manner, why would you assume that others would? 

Sure, there will be corrupt people, just as there are now.  What makes you think that government police are not also for sale to the highest bidder?  How does a government monopoly on the provision of these services make corruption less likely?  Doesn't any monopoly lend itself to MORE corruption than competitive markets?

Another thing to consider with the rapist scenario, is that having market based justice systems do NOT empower investigators or security agents with power to execute sentences.  Nor would they have "qualified immunity" like government cops either, making them WAY more cautious about apprehending innocent people.  There would still be courts and juries who decide guilt or innocence based on evidence.  These too would compete in the marketplace based on the same kinds of things other businesses do:  quality, price, timeliness, and above all reputation for actually being fair and just.

Is corruption still possible?  Of course.  Now tell me how government monopolies are immune from corruption.  They're not.  Yet everyone seems to think that market based competition somehow must be or else we should never risk having it.

.

hill hermit:

--- Quote from: badfish on July 10, 2016, 10:58:52 PM ---I have long considered myself a minimalist libertarian. I believed that government was necessary, however only for enforcement of an infringement of somebody else's rights. In other words, I have trouble understanding how the world could run without some laws and law enforcement that establish punishments for somebody who infringes on my rights. I would love to believe that we could have a society without government, but every time somebody brings up this argument I have never heard the argument go past the whole, "The market will demand protection, so somebody will step up to fill that void" argument. I hear it come up quite a bit when somebody tries to explain anarchism, but the other person never drills into that statement with, in my view, the right questions. Often they drill into with questions that don't make any sense and are easily explained away. One question that I feel is not asked is...

Let's say somebody is raped, and hires somebody on the market to look into the matter. What gives the free market vigilante the right to infringe on the rapists rights? Many times cases of rape are actually just cases where two people both drank too much and somebody regrets or doesn't remember what happened due to being intoxicated. I have actually seen this scenario play out many times. Maybe the defendant is not really a rapist, but the person who was hired isn't paid by the defendant so they will not want to listen to them. What if the rapist really is a rapist, but pays the vigilante even more money to leave him alone? It is a free market society after-all, and the highest bidder wins. This is where I see the problem. I feel like there has to be some agreed upon system in place to handle situations like this. In a utopia nobody would ever get raped, but I don't believe in man-kind that much.

Can somebody help me with this question? I would love to be able to back up a complete voluntary society argument, but until I believe in it 100% I will not be able to. In my view, we should not advocate for something until we have at least most of the answers. This is why I support Gary Johnson. I believe getting America away from this oppression will take many years, and must be done slowly. It can't be done in one term of a presidency. Maybe 2, but more likely 5-6 in my view. I believe in baby steps, but I don't believe in supporting Donald Trump just because he is not "establishment". It would be one step in the right direction to get people away from the establishment, but six steps in the wrong direction. If we choose somebody who could potentially make things worse it will only hurt the cause. We all know if a Trump presidency fails that the citizens will elect a Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton next election cycle (a huge step in the wrong direction). I hope I don't get bashed over this as I truly am just trying to make sense of things here. I am on your side! I promise!

--- End quote ---

I would say the flaw in trying to defend a "voluntaryist" society is that there is no one model an anarcho-collective society would fit.
I find a common "flaw" among anarchists I meet is the immediate reversal of the core belief due to self interest.
My throw away definition for anarchy is "leave me alone and i leave you alone".
The first thing I see so many self declared anarchists get hung up on is "what about them?".
To which I can only reply, "what about them?".
They only become my "problem" or "issue" after they have violated the first premise, "leave me alone".
Until that point, what they are doing is not only none of my concern but I violate my own principles if I make what they're doing my business.(doubly so if I need to go out of my way to find out what they are doing so I can be bothered by it)

Anarchists shouldn't be wasting time, effort, and moral ground trying to influence "them" to all agree with us. Let me tell you, it is never going to happen.  If they want lords and laws and governments I have no leg to stand on if I feel the need to alter their own voluntary interactions. My beliefs, which allow me to freely interact with my fellow man, also allow them to freely interact with their fellow men.

A voluntaryist society would reflect the common value judgements of the members which made it up.

The only way I feel you can honestly answer your question is to become a part of a voluntaryist society and then use the methods which your society arrives at as one example of how it could resolve the questions you ponder.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page